(There is an option to hide your signature if you don't wish this to be displayed)

Quote:

In June 2014, the Aviation Medicine Branch (AvMed) of CASA made radical changes to its implementation of the Aviation Colour Perception Standard (ACPS). Policies that had been in place for over twenty years and which had flowed from two landmark rulings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) were suddenly and without notice abandoned, the new policies involving draconian restrictions the likes of which had not been seen in Australia for over half a century. In line with these new policies a number of colour vision defective (CVD) pilots, upon renewing their medical certificates, found they faced restrictions that made participation in professional aviation a practical impossibility. In addition, the new policies effectively closed off all pathways to a professional piloting career for new applicants with CVD.

The changes in the policies governing the implementation the ACPS were justified by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) in the following statement he made in a letter to all Designated Aviation Medical Examiners (DAMEs): “Recent medical research indicates that the safety-related implications of an individual's CVD may be more significant than they were initially considered to be.” The letter to DAMEs was repeated in similar letters to CVD pilots and to all Australian AOC holders (the pilots’ employers), both containing the same claim as to “recent medical research”. This claim is not supported by any published evidence of unsafe performance by pilots with a CVD condition. Indeed, all the available evidence from both Australia and the USA is that the performance of CVD pilots is as safe as that of other pilots who do not have such a CVD condition. At the very least, there is no evidence of unsafe performance by any CVD pilots as a consequence of their CVD condition.

The reversal of policies that were based on the findings of the two AAT decisions is a serious matter, and even more so when seen in the light of a twenty five year period of incident and accident-free performance at all levels, private and professional, by CVD pilots since those landmark decisions were handed down. These hearings are widely recognised, even today, as the most comprehensive and impartial examination of all aspects of the ACPS, that has ever been conducted in any place and at any time.

Not only do the changes in these policies amount to a denial of the AAT findings of 25 years ago, they are even more bizarre and baffling when it is realised that a new appeal by a CVD pilot had already been lodged before the AAT and was due for a hearing in July 2014. Preparation and documentation by both parties of the evidence for that hearing were well advanced when CASA dropped this bombshell.

The trio of CASA’s letters to DAMEs, CVD pilots and AOC holders have been widely condemned by many industry participants as a blatant form of institutional bullying. As well, the taking away and then the re-instatement of “privileges”, within a span of mere days, of a number of CVD professional pilots has led to widespread industry outrage. Were it not so serious, it is quite farcical, and further exacerbates the broad lack of trust in CASA within the industry.

We petition Minister Truss to:

1. Direct CASA to immediately retract the letters sent to DAMEs, AOC holders and CVD pilots and appropriately sanction those responsible for these letters.

2. Direct CASA to immediately reverse the recent changes in policy that threaten the careers of hundreds of pilots and severely restrict new CVD pilots from being able to enter the aviation industry.

3. In the event that CASA is allowed to continue pursuing this matter through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, that public funding be made available so that once again, a fair, thorough and unbiased re-test of the established tenet can be presented.

4. To fund a study into the practical relevance of the aviation colour perception standard and its scientific basis so that Australia can continue to lead the rest of the world on this issue, as we have done for the past 25 years.

I am an airline pilot for Air NZ, my son, all he wants to do more than anything is to become a pilot. he is colour blind, but he plans to try his hardest to become a pilot for a major airline. he's 10 years old now, and I sure hope once he's old enough there will be the opportunity for his dreams to come true.

I am a second generation pilot. My nephew is CVD but has commenced his flight training regardless. He has never wanted to be anything else other than a pilot like his Grandfather, his Father and myself, his Uncle. He should be allowed the same potential future as we have already enjoyed in our own careers and lives. Passion for aviation should never be punished but encouraged and mentored.

I am a mildly color vision deficient pilot training for my Commercial and Instrument ratings as we speak. I have none and never had any issues with many night hours in my logbook and in all types of conditions. I even meet the current standard, but had to go through many years of stress and extra hundreds of dollars to get my unrestricted medical certificate from the FAA, and now I always have to worry if they are going to change the requirements in the future which could potentially cause my career to end. I have invested thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to train, and to have it all stolen from me on the basis of the opinion a of few pencil pushing NON PILOTS who know nothing about flying and are simply defending their PhD's while trying to SELL a new color vision test is nothing short of highway robbery, abuse of power, and discrimination of the highest order. I know MANY color vision deficient pilots in the USA with 1000's of hours in jets of all types, many decades of experience, and 0 issues. I even meet the standard, but the price has been high, and I am supporting this to defend the future of our careers, human rights, and fairness in general.

"Normal's" don't have to pay the extra money, time, sweat, and stress to jump through these hoops, so neither should someone who can't tell lime green from chartreuse. Pilots are not interior designers and do not need perfect color vision at all. If nothing else, they should design color out of the system entirely, as it is already redundant in its current design. With the technology of today, they could probably do this for every single technical career field out there.

The PMO Russian Roulette who'll be next??

TICK..TOCK..TIME Miniscule!

Voices of Reason:

ROB LIDDELL, FORMER CASA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: It's very unusual for a regulator to tell people to consider whether they themselves thought they might be unsafe or not and the regulator usually sets the standard and that's the end of it.

MARIA HATZAKIS: Rob Liddell was Director of aviation medicine at CASA or what was then known as the Civil Aviation Authority for about a decade from 1988. He can't see any reason for tougher rules.

ROB LIDDELL: In Australia where our colour vision standard has been incredibly relaxed since probably 1990s early 1990, we now have thousands of colour defective pilots who would have thousands and thousands of hours of flying and we're not actually seeing, any accidents or incidents related to that, so it's a bit surprising that CASA should suddenly take this line.

MARIA HATZAKIS: Liberal Senator David Fawcett is a former flying instructor and test pilot.

DAVID FAWCETT: I think the letters cause quite a deal of uncertainty for both the pilots and for their employers. They raise a doubt in people's minds about the safety of these pilots and yet the last 25 years has shown that these pilots have operated, single pilot, as part of a crew quite safely with no incidents.

MARIA HATZAKIS: He's written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who's responsible for CASA urging him to conduct a study based on 25 years of accident free flying. He also believes the Commonwealth should help John O'Brien.

DAVID FAWCETT: I think it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to fund the O'Brien case before the AAT so that both sides of the argument can bring forth their experts, the evidence can be laid out in an unbiased and complete manner before the AAT and they can then make a decision.

500 in 24 hours is a good start; don't forget the AIPA, AFAP and VIPA associations don't count as one vote each; they speak for the majority of industry pilots and their support in this campaign is invaluable.

It's excellent to see the O's pilots weighing in; it has been said, many times; the real tragedy here is the denial of 25 years of empirical evidence that the 'safety case' is flimsy at best at could stand some serious discussion. Had Australia continued with the original intention, many pilots, world wide could have enjoyed the benefit of 'certainty'.

Quote:

1) CVD pilots expect varying degrees of difficulty passing any medical Colour Vision Test (CVT). 'Laboratory' based tests are specifically designed to identify the CVD pilot. There is however a demonstrated, significant disparity between CVDP performance during 'laboratory' CVT and the performance noted when physically flying aircraft. This is acknowledged by the ICAO in the statement below:

“The problem with colour vision standards for pilots and air traffic controllers is that there is very little information which shows the real, practical implications of colour vision defects on aviation safety.” (ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine 2012, Section 11.8.29).

2) This fact was recognised during the Denison appeal and defines why the tribunal recommended (paragraph 78) that suitable “practical” tests be devised. This ultimately led to the inclusion of Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) 67.150 (6)(c) which approved the option of a test which “simulates an operational situation”.

3) It should be noted that at the conclusion of the Denison appeal, the Authority undertook to promote the outcome of the appeal to the wider aviation world. This undertaking was implemented in particular by former CASA Aviation Medical Directors, Dr Rob Liddell, Dr Jeff Brock and Dr Peter Wilkins. The ruling provided a brief period of pragmatic, sensible reform within the Avmed. The Avmed department during this enlightened era was much in favour of promoting the Australian experience at the international level, with a view to promote more research and define universal colour vision standards in other countries; and, to examine the case for the removal of standard entirely.

4) During this era, each Doctor associated expressed concerns that the CVD testing methods were flawed and that they needed to be redesigned to reflect operational relevance; as the tribunal had recommended. Waivers were routinely provided allowing pilots to exercise ATPL privileges. This, despite individual inability to meet 'laboratory' CVT standards, allowed CVD pilots to demonstrate ability necessary for the safe performance of duties, thus allowing CVD pilots to exercise, to the full, the authority of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL).

Why must we now, suddenly decide to deny this not only to our pilots, but to the world, is beyond me. But without a better argument than Avmed are putting up, even challenging the Denison findings seems to be a futile exercise.

While trolling through Fort Fumble's FOI Disclosure log I came across a new entry, which must be said was published in world record time, that possibly may shine new light on the PMO's new evidence on CVD. Here is a couple of excerpts..

No nothing there??

However the next excerpt does have an interesting comment by the PMO on a CAMI (FAA) new research on CVD testing:

So ausdoc, since you are in the know, any chance that we could get a copy/summary of this CAMI (FAA) research paper?? It could be the key to this new research that the PMO is banging on about??

OK back to the petition which still needs far more support, so come on people get on-board…

John McDermott AUSTRALIA Another example of CASA making radical changes, which effect careers and livelihoods of many, without safety based reasoning and in fact ignoring the 20 years of actual safety data supporting the CVD personnel. It is as much the principle of change without reason and without consent which causes me the greatest concern. IF there was a history of incidents, then it would be an understandble argument BUT that simply is not the case.

Wayne Moore AUSTRALIA Recent experience in another area within CASA has shown that the Management team within CASA seems to have untrammelled ability to arbitrarily impose requirements on industry without going to any sort of review or oversight of their actions and in some cases their actions appear to have no head of power in the published legislation or other published CASA documentation. They all seem to forget that under the provisions of Section 9 of the ACT they are required to conduct safety regulation of the industry. Unless there is a clear and identified safety risk then they should not be acting. At the moment Regulation for the sake of regulation appears to be the norm. As an ex CASA employee and field office inspector, I am appalled at the lack of due process and democratic principles being exhibited within CASA. There needs to be an oversighting body with the power to issue a show cause to a CASA officer who has exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the legislative requirements. It seems the senior management within CASA is asleep at the wheel and their underlings are running roughshod over the industry.

Folks Now we are seeing the murky depths --- CASA making decisions based on "a potential liability for CASA".,

In other words, CASA instituting the most draconian medical standards so as to limit any CASA liability for having instituted any medical standard less than the most restrictive.

Under oath in the Federal Court, an admission was extracted from the then head of Airworthiness of CASA, that CASA routinely rejected otherwise sound and lawful proposals, on the grounds that CASA approving the project could create a potential future liability for CASA.

Unfortunately, here we have the interaction of,in my opinion, a CASA DAS who seems to take a very black and white view of the law, a PMO who, In my opinion, believes that only the strictest and most limiting medical standards should be applied, and, of course, the CASA legal branch.

The serious effect of a "potential liability for CASA" has had a long history of resulting in very adverse and regressive CASA decisions.

Rather disappointing that the petition has only got 1400 signatures. I feel people are feeling this is CVD doesn't affect me? Take a look at the treatment they have received. Could you ever develop a condition that could be treated in the same way?

Oh so true... CAsA is a monstrous CON JOB, and disastrous for small business in this country.

1. As USA has been saying for years/decades...the PUNITIVE approach to avaitaion safety DOES NOT WORK. Only the control FREAKS in FF think it does. BIG R my aRse!

2. Businesses cannot thrive and survive with inordinate delays with paperwork, exorbitant fees, and all the other BS imposts put upon the GA Industry. CAsA creates work for itself to justify it being there...but the burden of time and money wasting from that crap falls on people who are trying to make a go of it.

3. Revolution time has come. We, the people ,etc DEMAND it

Goverments, miniscules, politicians, boreds, das and ceos have shown over decades they have neither the interest, or the leadership or any capability to drive/force/smash thru the CAsA iron barrier and bring about the saving of GA in this country.

The costs have been enormous ..and not just for the taxpayer, individuals and businesses have been on the receiving end of corruption, cronyism falsehoods and misfeasance. Just ask JQ as one example.

And is Australia a safer place for all of this?

I'm afraid the answer is NO, writ VERY large

And do remember CAsA.s code is actually No Accountability, No Liability

Fullbiscuit, I have signed the petition However the problem is this - you could have 1.4 million signatures and it won't make a difference. CAsA don't understand, or care. They are now so paranoid about accountability that they even try to enforce rules based on 'potential'! What a pack of morons. Truss is a numbnut, a dithering old trough extractor and self proclaimed protector of his ass and retirement funds. He couldn't give two handfuls of monkey shit about any IOS petition, or about another human beings flying career and livelihood, and neither does his underling Mr Pumpkin Head.

That is why most of Australia's aviation industry is silent about this matter. They know it is a waste of time and a futile endeavour to seek fair change because it won't happen. They could still support their brothers, after all it used to be the Aussie way, just look at our ANZACS! But not anymore, society doesn't care and neither does the government.

Civil disobedience and a revolution is the way to go, just look at America, not long to go now!! Who knows, maybe a member of Anonymous will become DAS? Now that I would pay to see!

Learned helplessness occurs when an animal is repeatedly subjected to an aversive stimulus that it cannot escape. Eventually, the animal will stop trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness will prevent any action.

While the concept is strongly tied to animal psychology and behavior, it can also apply to many situations involving human beings. When people feel that they have no control over their situation, they may also begin to behave in a helpless manner. This inaction can lead people to overlook opportunities for relief or change.

In other words Creampuff, perhaps the disappointing response is indicating that most folks have realised that it's simply not possible to change the situation here in Australia, and that they've simply given up?

The petition to decriminalise the use of medicinal cannabis for people with terminal cancer has 186,000 + supporters…

Hope none of those 186 000 are pilots, otherwise Fort Fumble will step up its DAMP testing in an effort to rid the skies of those pesky IOS! I think some of the lunatics in the CAsA asylum might have been smoking spliffs for years. Fools

TM # 2020 Senate "Does this mean that 32,600 pilots agree with CASA in regard to the danger of CDV pilots?"

Well lets look see here, 2250 from the AIPA representation, the AFAP bring another few hundred, then there's VIPA. All 'big' membership associations, with clout and connections, even the AOPA have chipped in. So with the humble 1400 or so votes from PPRuNe, I'd say old mate is, once again, talking through his hat (provided he knows of course, which end the hat goes on).

Oh, and don't forget Senator Fawcett has a vote, his speech last evening was most enlightening; but I wouldn't expect anyone brain dead to count that in – but they should.